lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:35:45 +0000
From:	Yevgeny Petrilin <yevgenyp@...lanox.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 1/3] mlx4_en: TX ring size default to 1024

> > Signed-off-by: Yevgeny Petrilin <yevgenyp@...lanox.co.il>
> 
> This is rediculious as a default, yes even for 10Gb.
> 
> Do you have any idea how high latency is going to be for packets
> trying to get into the transmit queue if there are already a
> thousand other frames in there?

On the other hand, when having smaller queue with 1000 in-flight packets would mean queue would be stopped,
how is it better?
Having bigger TX ring helps dealing better with bursts of TX packets, without the overhead of stopping and starting the queue,
It also makes sense to have same size TX and RX queues, for example in case of traffic being forwarded from TX to RX.

I did find number of 10Gb vendors that have 1024 or more as the default size for TX queue.

Thanks,
Yevgeny
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists